To me, the killer thing is the blotches, eg: the streak between lanes two and three. These little 'errors' are unrelated to the testing and results, but are identical in both images. It would be totally amazing if these random marks of happenstance were the same in two different slides, which the same institute had put on public display for two different test results.

Two cars looking the same when brand new is not surprising. Two cars crashing into each other, and ending up with damage that looked exactly the same? That would be a miracle.

Columns 3 and 6 are the same result, done in the same way, but look quite different to one another. The different images do not look at all different from one another. It's just the same.

Thanks for some detailed insight. This gives some impression of how the error might have come about. The reason people are so angered by this is that it is one of a series of apparent mistakes made by WPI. If you've been ill with this illness for many years, all you want is someone to come along and do some good quality science so you can go back to your former life.

We really could have done without this, whatever the explanation.

Click to expand...

The people on that blog are really moronic sounding anons who throw ad hominem at other scientists and ME/CFS supporters like monkey poo. YOU DON'T KNOW who the hell these people are. They're anons!

That ERV thinks she can get a letter published bringing Mikovits to her knees on the basis of two fuzzy images, and ERV's cronies believe that too, demonstrates the high level of naivite about science, academia and the peer review process on that blog, as well as their collective bad faith.

I believe I said her science and not her language. She was a guest recent on Prof Racaniello's show and scientists do visit and comment on her blogs. Personally, I try and read as many interpretations as I can as well as as much as I am able from the various Journals before even forming an opinion of anything to do with science.

This latest blog of hers has less to do with science and more to do with something that a layman could see was true. A layman like moi. I have though read her previous blogs about the various papers connected with XMRV and I found them interesting.

Her language doesn't put me off.

Click to expand...

firestormm,

surely you can see it is NOT her language at issue? It is her attacks on people, her simplistic and naive arrogance, exhibited above, her treatment of other scientists and a patient community, her logical fallacies- the ad hominems, the irrational appeals to authority ("I'm a scientist you know! I'm the cleverest!")

surely you can see it is NOT her language at issue? It is her attacks on people, her simplistic and naive arrogance, exhibited above, her treatment of other scientists and a patient community, her logical fallacies- the ad hominems, the irrational appeals to authority ("I'm a scientist you know! I'm the cleverest!")

Maybe firestormm you could sharpen your critical faculties a bit more? I'm serious. I'm shocked you could be this naive when all you get on that site is drama and irational hate-mongering.

When a CFS patient lets forth some hate-filled rant about Wessely, someone who was genuinely interested in the truth would try to look past the bile and see if there were any legitimate reasons for the patient's anger. I think it would be a mistake to ignore the content of ERV's post just because she expresses herself, and her personal dislike of Mikovits, in a rather forthright manner.

I agree with Bob, that it seems some are seeing this as more important than it is (although maybe I'm wrong), but it does seem that a genuine error has been picked up, and it would be good to get a comment from the WPI about it. It's also really peculiar that a couple of patients are so insistent that the two images are not the same, or that no error took place, and that some others seem to believe them.

When a CFS patient lets forth some hate-filled rant about Wessely, someone who was genuinely interested in the truth would try to look past the bile and see if there were any legitimate reasons for the patient's anger. I think it would be a mistake to ignore the content of ERV's post just because she expresses herself, and her personal dislike of Mikovits, in a rather forthright manner.

I agree with Bob, that it seems some are seeing this as more important than it is (although maybe I'm wrong), but it does seem that a genuine error has been picked up, and it would be good to get a comment from the WPI about it. It's also really peculiar that a couple of patients are so insistent that the two images are not the same, or that no error took place, and that some others seem to believe them.

Click to expand...

But this is your opinion. My honest opinion is, I don't know. This might make me one of the more objective here, because I'm admitting to that. I think they look different, but I'm aware I might be wrong.

ERV is hoping to bring Mikovits to her knees on the strength of this one fuzzy graph. She and her cronies believe they will triumph over the evil Mikovits and ERV's letter will be a great success in some journal. That is shocking naivite, and bad faith to boot. These cannot be divorced from the whole situation.

You have to remember the context of discrepancies in Science. PACE authors just recently had to admit to a discrepancy lately. See how THAT was treated. But here- we are expected to believe a serious misdemeanour has been committed!

And we don't even know if there is a discrepancy.

ERV might be correct about there being a discrepancy. BUT the key here is how she is treating it. ********** THAT'S the problem here.

The two images? You think that they look like different shapes? I don't understand how. I'm really confused by this. Have you looked at the images Bob posted here, if you don't trust ERV?

I've not been keeping up with any plans ERV has to send a letter, or how people are reacting to her, but none of that alters the fact that those two images are of the same test result, and labelled in different ways. Personally, I don't think this is that big a deal, but that's a different matter, and I could well be wrong about that - I've got no idea what the expectations are for that sort of presentation.

re PACE: Are you talking about the 'normal range' thing? Or has there been something else? Thanks.

I am having trouble following what V is saying, but I think V is saying that the WPI images are supposed to look the same. She is also saying the two images used by ERV have been doctored (they also look the same as each other). However the two images used by WPI are different to the images used by ERV.

The arguement is much more complex than one slide seems to look like the other. It is about background gels, gag and env etc.

If WPI has made a neglectful mistake by putting in the wrong slide (V says they haven't because the images are supposed to be the same), ERV has committed definite fraud by altering the slides.

I repeat, this is not my view, but V's. What I will say though is that most people on this forum would not have a clue about the finer points of this issue (including myself). Yet despite ERV's long history of vehemence and blatant anti ME trash, some forum members are carrying a burning torch to the castle in support of an argument they do not understand, from a person who hates you and me, just so they get to see WPI burn.

PS. If you haven't tried to read and understand what V is saying on the other forum thread, then you haven't bothered to get the other side of the argument, and you really shouldn't be making claims one way or another, no matter how politely couched.

The WPI will explain that it was a mix-up by a clerical assistant, and they will then produce the correct image, which will look very similar (but not identical) to the image mistakenly shown in the slide.

I am having trouble following what V is saying, but I think V is saying that the WPI images are supposed to look the same. She is also saying the two images used by ERV have been doctored (they also look the same as each other). However the two images used by WPI are different to the images used by ERV.

The arguement is much more complex than one slide seems to look like the other. It is about background gels, gag and env etc.

If WPI has made a neglectful mistake by putting in the wrong slide (V says they haven't because the images are supposed to be the same), ERV has committed definite fraud by altering the slides.

I repeat, this is not my view, but V's. What I will say though is that most people on this forum would not have a clue about the finer points of this issue (including myself). Yet despite ERV's long history of vehemence and blatant anti ME trash, some forum members are carrying a burning torch to the castle in support of an argument they do not understand, from a person who hates you and me, just so they get to see WPI burn.

PS. If you haven't tried to read and understand what V is saying on the other forum thread, then you haven't bothered to get the other side of the argument, and you really shouldn't be making claims one way or another, no matter how politely couched.

Click to expand...

Okay, well then, leave ERV out of it. Go and find the original image in the Science paper, go an find the image from the Ottawa conference. Compare them. They are identical down to the extraneous garbage on the slides. With any blots, you can end up with very similar blots but the extraneous stuff on the blots will never be identical. If you download the images to your computer and adjust the contrast and brightness, you will see they are in fact identical in every way down to every last extraneous mark on the slide. Judge for yourself. What ERV has to say is irrelevant.

The WPI will explain that it was a mix-up by a clerical assistant, and produce the correct image, which looks very similar to the one published.

And there will end the drama.

Click to expand...

I know where you are coming from Bob, and you may well be right, although as I said above I don't know enough to be making any guess on the outcome. However that wasn't the point of my post (and yet it was lol). It really was about the torch bearing. And it will only go away until the next excuse to pick up a torch. I can dismiss most torch bearing as ignorance or pettiness, but when it looks more systematic and guided it becomes a real problem.

This whole deal with WPi is anti-science; people waving burning torches in the name of science as they close down the labs. Ony I think they've targetted the wrong Frankenstein labs. Should be burning down CDC contracted labs where MLVs are floating around and being remade on a daily basis.

I know where you are coming from Bob, and you may well be right, although as I said above I don't know enough to be making any guess on the outcome. However that wasn't the point of my post (and yet it was lol). It really was about the torch bearing. And it will only go away until the next excuse to pick up a torch. I can dismiss most torch bearing as ignorance or pettiness, but when it looks more systematic and guided it becomes a real problem.

This whole deal with WPi is anti-science; people waving burning torches in the name of science as they close down the labs. Ony I think they've targetted the wrong Frankenstein labs. Should be burning down CDC contracted labs where MLVs are floating around and being remade on a daily basis.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with your perspective Rusty.

But this image/slide issue really is a storm in a tea cup.

I don't think it's worth wasting any more of our energy on it.

I don't think we can avoid the attacks on the WPI.

And I don't think we should worry about the attacks, unduly.

The WPI seem to have polarised opinions, because they made themselves highly visible.

And this is just science playing out.

Scientists have egos and strong opinions just like the rest of us, and will attack each other's reputations.

And there is no science without scientists.

So I think all we can do now is support the WPI if that's what we want to do, and sit and watch the science play out.

The Lipkin study is going ahead; Judy is publishing her full sequences; Others have expressed an interest in the antibody work and looking for other retroviruses.

Scientists have egos and strong opinions just like the rest of us, and will attack each other's reputations.

And there is no science without scientists.

Click to expand...

Agree Bob (with all you said in that post). One critical thing I might add is that some scientists will attack each other's reputations. ATM it is all one way.

Also (not criticizing just embellishing ) some scientists have mostly ego and very little science; like some doctors they claim ownership of authority, despite their obvious human frailties, and quite often they use this 'platforum' to push their jaundiced opinion onto us lesser mortals.

kjm. By your own admission you know nothing about the make-up of background noise on the blots. You will discover why the backgrounds can be very similar by reading V's thread. You are just repeating what the undergrad lot are saying on ERVs's blog. You can't say 'ignore ERV' but believe what all her torch-bearers are saying.

BTW you made your rather excited claims of fraud well before the comments about gels etc were made, on really flimsy evidence, and on the sayso of a self confessed ME hater. This is a forum for ME patients. For the sake of patients who are in a fragile state please do not refer patients to ERV and refrain from repeating anything she says, because she does not like us.

Click to expand...

RustyJ -- You don't need any experience with background noise to be able to see that background noise and the rest of the slides are identical. What V99 is saying is utter tosh and most people are seeing this. What is she going to do if Mikovits states next week that a mistake was made and yes they are the same slides. I am actually not reading ERV's blog at this point. I looked at the blog, went and copied the slides myself and looked at them and have come to the conclusion they are identical. Many other people have reached this conclusion. As far as ERV not liking people with ME, that is not the truth at all. She has had some good conversations with patients. I guess people believe what they want to though.

I never mentioned fraud once and I think you need to edit that out of your post because it totally misrepresents what I have said. What I did repeatedly say was that I am interested in an explanation from Judy Mikovits. If she made a mistake or somebody made a mistake, I am interested how and why this happened. If she says, yes a mistake was made, I will appreciate her honesty. If she says nothing, that will reflect badly on her.

For the sake of the patients, we should discuss things that are important, this issue is important in a few different ways.

I am actually extremely ill right now and this is taking a lot out of me, so I think I will stop posting on this thread. Please, know that accusing people of making statements that they didn't actually make is not fair and for me quite stressful. I actually don't think Judy Mikovits committed any fraud whatsoever. Just to make that clear.

RustyJ -- You don't need any experience with background noise to be able to see that background noise and the rest of the slides are identical. What V99 is saying is utter tosh and most people are seeing this. What is she going to do if Mikovits states next week that a mistake was made and yes they are the same slides. I am actually not reading ERV's blog at this point. I looked at the blog, went and copied the slides myself and looked at them and have come to the conclusion they are identical. Many other people have reached this conclusion. As far as ERV not liking people with ME, that is not the truth at all. She has had some good conversations with patients. I guess people believe what they want to though.

I never mentioned fraud once and I think you need to edit that out of your post because it totally misrepresents what I have said. What I did repeatedly say was that I am interested in an explanation from Judy Mikovits. If she made a mistake or somebody made a mistake, I am interested how and why this happened. If she says, yes a mistake was made, I will appreciate her honesty. If she says nothing, that will reflect badly on her.

For the sake of the patients, we should discuss things that are important, this issue is important in a few different ways.

I am actually extremely ill right now and this is taking a lot out of me, so I think I will stop posting on this thread. Please, know that accusing people of making statements that they didn't actually make is not fair and for me quite stressful. I actually don't think Judy Mikovits committed any fraud whatsoever. Just to make that clear.

Click to expand...

kjm, I unreservedly apologize. I did get you mixed up with someone else, as SOC picked up on, thank God. I am very sorry to cause you further distress, hope you feel better soon.

Where did Shepherd say that? (too many threads to keep up with!)

Click to expand...

Esther12, Sorry I didn't respond. (At least I can't remember responding). I spent some time trying to validate it. It is attributable to V (in the thread), and I think she got it wrong or I may have interpreted it incorrectly (most probably) - for those that are interested Shepherd was named and involved in this ERV issue but may have offered up a lukewarm defense of Mikovits and he subsequently came under attack on his FB page. I don't advise going there. He cops a bit of a beating. But if you compare the comments on that post to those on ERV's, for all their abuse, the ME patients fall quite short on vitriol.